Mediaboss Marketing

Censorship has been a topic that has received a great deal of attention in the technology and internet sector simply because there are markets that do experience a great deal of censorship. My article on Friday, for example, discussed the Pakistani filtering request and potential implications that it would have on future censorship in that country. China, however, receives the most attention for the censorship that is experienced in the country with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others all being blocked. Now, with a fresh censoring episode in China of the term "Ferrari," new issues are raised regarding how censoring can negatively impact a specific company and its business.

On Sunday, a Ferrari 458 carrying two women and an unidentified third crashed in the Haidian district of Beijing. The two women sustained potentially serious injuries while the unidentified driver was killed. According to various international sources, reports of the crash in China as well as the term "Ferrari" have been deleted from websites in the country to apparently reduce the information available regarding the crash. Further, online searches of the term "Ferrari" have been blocked. This activity has brought forth media speculation of the driver's identity and the potential for it to be someone of particular importance. Regardless of the reason for the censorship in the form of deletions and blockings, there are potentially harmful effects to Ferrari in that market. The harm is specifically in relation to a restriction of their online presence and their resulting diminished search engine optimization.

Like us on Facebook

Lessons for Internet MarketersFerrari, the company, did not do anything controversial or put out any message related to restricted or sensitive topics in the Chinese market (which largely characterizes the reason for others being censored). Instead, the company was unfortunately brought into this situation by the circumstances of the crash. Thus, this case illustrates the volatile nature of conducting business and having an online presence in a market that experiences internet censorship; at any time, your online presence can be restricted or simply eliminated for any length of time.

Ferrari could experience this disruption to their online presence for a number of weeks, months, or potentially longer. In dealing with censorship, it is hard to predict the length of such disruptions. Thus, companies operating in markets that experience censorship should not rely solely on their internet presence for their business, this makes ecommerce sites especially vulnerable.

Further, Ferrari could not have predicted such an event and subsequent blocking of their name from internet searches. However, there are measures that they can take now to recover (and can be taken by other companies to minimize harm if experiencing a similar situation). This measure is that of diversifying the internet marketing that your company engages in and implementing a coordinated effort containing search engine optimization, paid search, and social media, among others. This way, if one aspect of your strategy cannot function (like a social platform gets banned or your organic search is blocked like Ferrari) then you can fall back on the other facets of your overall strategy. In the end, it is case specific as different companies use their online presence for different purposes. For example, it is likely Ferrari does not try to drive conversions online as that is not the way they make sales, however, their online presence is valuable and they use it to engage with their wider audience.

Contact me directly at rbuddenhagen@webimax.com if you have any questions regarding how your business can navigate such a scenario or how your company can develop a proactive strategy if operating in markets where such disruptions are possible.

Continued here:
When Censorship Hurts Businesses' SEO; The Curious Blocking of Ferrari in China

Pakistani Parliament House

Last week we reported on the controversy over Pakistan's Request for Proposals for a sophisticated Internet censorship system. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has vowed to stop the distribution of "blasphemous and objectionable content" over the Pakistani Internet, and was seeking a system capable of blocking up to 50 million URLs. Internet freedom activists rallied against the proposal and secured commitments from several major IT vendors not to bid for the project.

Now the Pakistani government appears to be backing away from the proposal. A member of the National Assembly, the lower house of Pakistan's legislature, told the Express Tribune that Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology had withdrawn the project "due to the concern shown by various stakeholders."

Yet the Pakistani officials in charge of the proposal have yet to confirm the reports. A spokesman from the IT Ministry told the Express Tribune that it would release a statement on Tuesday, but Ars was unable to find such a statement on the agency's website.

Critics of the censorship scheme hailed the news, but warned the fight was far from over.

"While these reports are promising, there is still a possibility that the Pakistani government could try to covertly implement a similar system," said Mike Rispoli, a spokesman for the advocacy group Access. His group collected more than 18,000 signatures opposing the scheme.

Rispoli called for new legislation prohibiting the Pakistani government from implementing such a censorship regime in the future.

See the original post here:
Pakistan backs away from proposed censorship system

The Delhi High Court says Microsoft should not be involved in a Web censorship case that has turned its sights firmly on Facebook and Google.

Microsoft has been given a reprieve in an Indian Web censorship case against several online companies.

The software giant today was told by the Delhi High Court that it will not face charges in the criminal censorship case after the company argued that no formal allegations were brought against it. Microsoft's departure from the case comes after Yahoo was also allowed out.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the news.

The India case is focusing on Google and Facebook. Last week, the Journal reported that the companies were forced to head to trial in India after they were charged with failing to censor online content that "will corrupt minds."

For their part, Google and Facebook argue that they're protected under India's information technology law, which they claim protects them against content added to sites by users. The companies have also said that when asked, they comply with take-downs related to "objectionable" content.

A battle between India and the online giants, who are among nearly a dozen defendants, seemed to be brewing in December when the government demanded that all Web companies prescreen user content before it hits the Internet. India's acting telecommunications minister, Kapil Sibal, said at the time that the move would limit inflammatory content finding its way onto the Internet.

Internet censorship has become a key component in online companies' relations with countries around the world. China is perhaps the most notorious censor, taking Web sites down that it believes violate its laws. Google went as far as moving its China search to Hong Kong because of the country's stringent censorship laws.

In India, the stakes are high for all the companies involved. If they're found guilty, the firms could face stiff fines and their executives could be forced to serve jail time.

Microsoft did not immediately respond to CNET's request for comment.

Read more from the original source:
Microsoft off the hook in India censorship case

Joseph Brean Mar 18, 2012 8:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Mar 17, 2012 6:31 PM ET

To judge by the loudest headlines and the most retweeted quips, censorship has been having a bad run in the last while, with failure heaped upon failure.

Overseas, the Arab Spring was credited as much to free-flowing social media as to the rebels who used it, and the campaign for dissident Chinese artist Ai Weiwei made him more famous than ever. A request by the U.S. government that science journals withhold details of bird flu research because of bio-terrorism fears caused a furore that is likely to end with their publication. And in Canada, the federal human rights law against Internet hate speech is about to be repealed and/or judicially overturned as censorious overreaching that violates the Charter right to free expression.

The Internet has made us feel free, and in its glare, the censor has come to seem like a foolish, out-dated, beady-eyed accountant of ideas. Censors are like poisoners, according to Nick Cohen, author of a new book on the subject. They can be successful or famous, but not both.

Behind the news, however, censorship is alive and well in the free world, and is at its most effective when victims pretend it doesnt exist.

Alicia Canter/Observer

Nick Cohen.

Among its greatest enablers, Mr. Cohen writes in You Cant Read This Book: Censorship In An Age Of Freedom, is the phoniness rampant in an overexposed Western culture, in which rebel poseurs fight battles that have already been won.

It is easy and common, he says, to pose as a smasher of taboos, a transgressive artist, an edgy comedian, or a brave journalist speaking truth to power

Its very hard for them to admit to being afraid, even though its essential, he said in an interview on the launch of the book in Canada.

Read the original here:
Censorship is alive and dangerous, even in the West

From Wired How-To Wiki

When Twitter announced a change to their censorship policy in January, Twitter users and pundits rose dutifully to the defense of free speech. Critics said the company sought to silence voices of dissent in compliance with requests from autocratic governments and anti-transparency bureaucracies.

The uproar, however, may have been in haste. Twitter has always had an obligation to remove illegal content; their new policy simply ensures prohibited tweets disappear only within the borders of the offended country. Offense alone also provides no grounds for removal. On its website, Twitter says it deletes tweets only after receiving a valid and scoped request from an authorized entity."

While this change in policy won't affect you if Twitter is your go-to for funny pictures or Foursquare check-ins, activists or rebels may be worried that government intervention will cause this vessel of communication to be lost to them forever. For those trying to avoid inciting the wrath of those who wish to censor you, we've compiled these tips that will help you escape prying authoritative eyes.

This article was written by John Flanagan, a Vermont-based writer, film fan, and intermittent bon vivant.

Twitter will notify you directly if youre being censored, unless theyre legally prohibited from doing so. You can check for yourself by viewing your own tweets. Censored tweets from others appear in your timeline with a message reading, Tweet Withheld: This tweet from (@Username) has been withheld in: (your country). If a particular Twitter user whom you follow has been blocked, a similar message will appear: (@Username) Withheld: This account has been withheld in: (Your country).

Fret not, however, because there are a few simple tricks to get around these blocks.

Twitter wields the hushcloth according to your accounts Country setting. The company guesses where you live based upon the IP address of your computer, phone, iPad, etc., and changing this location is a cinch. Heres how:

Eschew censorship by referencing sensitive material indirectly in your tweets. For instance, instead of referring to a controversial despot by name, tweet about the fourth president of Egypt or the successor of Hafez al-Assad. While this approach may evade detection, the cleverly-worded content continues to violate laws.

l33tspeak (leet or elite speak) doesn't just belong to hackers it has its benefit for dissidents as well. Certain censors filter certain words, so where revolt might not fly, r3v0lt sneaks through undetected. In English, substituting ASCII characters for letters of the Roman alphabet, or using intentional misspellings, helps evade trackers. Many languages have their own version of l33tspeak, such as Russians Padonkaffsky Jargon and Japaneses Kusachu. Like clever wording, however, this approach is still illegal, and thus grounds for removal.

Visit link:
Avoid Twitter Censorship